CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 March 24, 2025
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
March 24, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on March 24, 2025 at 5:00 PM. 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Government Code section 54957.6 - Agency designated representatives: Mark Wilson, Allison Hernandez of Burke, Williams, and Sorenson; Employee organizations: Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 240; Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 ; Miscellaneous Employee, Teamster Local 856; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Police Mgmt. & Police Supervisors; Wastewater Treatment Plant Teamsters Local 856
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer reconvened the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney (Zoom); Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Financial & Administrative Services Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Interim Director; Roland Yip, PW Deputy Director City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 24, 2025
(Field Services/Engineering); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Boles
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any councilmembers wished to pull any items in consent.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she would like to pull Item #3.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she has a few questions about Item #4. She thought this the same vendor who did work in her area and around Pacifica and she did not think they did a good job. She asked if they are subcontracting or are they doing the work themselves.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Pavement Coatings is the company and they do the work.
Councilmember Espinosa asked how the City makes sure the pavement work is done correctly.
She asked will there be somebody making sure that what they said they are going to do is done.
She also wants to find out about the thickness of the material they put in and how do we hold them accountable. She asked about the length of warranty. She wanted to find out what maintenance means and are they going to continue checking on those streets and, if something went wrong, will they go back and fix it.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, to keep them accountable on the project, we will have staff doing inspections on this project. He stated that the project primarily for this year is going to be a rubber cape seal; the first layer is the chip seal and the second layer is the slurry seal. They are two layers of black coating that they are putting onto the surface so there is no thickness to check in terms of that material, but we will be checking submittals to make sure we are getting the materials that we have specified in our plans. Where there is a thickness is an asphalt material that we place in the ground (roughly 3 inches) and we will remove and replace the asphalt before they do the rubber cape seals, and we will be measuring out there with tape measure to make sure it is compacted properly. He stated that the most important thing for asphalt is that they go down hot and we have to make sure that goes down above 175 degrees.
They make sure it has compaction and they do the chip seal and then the slurry seal. He stated that, as far as liquidated damages, since the project from two years ago, we have added a $1,000 liquidated damage for each block where they post a no parking sign and they do not perform any work; that is every single day, every single block, and that usually deters contractors from trying to schedule paving at once and not being able to get to it, causing residents to move around. They will get charged and, when we get phone calls, he lets residents know that we have accumulated all the liquidated damages so they will not have moved for nothing. The cost of the contract will go down whenever they post all the no parking signs. He stated that there is also a $500 liquidated damage in the specifications whenever City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 24, 2025
they work without giving hand delivered notices to the residents three days in advance. He stated that those two have prevented many issues. We did not see as many issues last year and we collected liquidated damages last year for our project. He stated that we have one and a half staff full-time when paving starts and we have additional liquidated damages on the project. As far as the bid requirements, the requirement comes from the California Public Contracting Code which is a State law. Bids must first be a responsive bid and, secondly, they must be a responsible contractor. The Contracting Code states that a portion of the work is a half-percent of the contract, i.e. $10,000. They must list subcontractors. When it is a nonresponsive bid, the most common occurrence is people do not list out the correct subcontractors on the project. There are also bonding requirements, insurance, forms, and abidance by our plans and specifications. That constitutes a responsive bid, which is not to be confused with a responsible contractor. He stated, on this paving project, the two lowest bids, S&H Construction and Build Corps, have submitted bids and staff is not saying that they are not a responsible contractor, but that the bids are not responsive. There is a slight nuance there, as their specifications require a certain amount of references which equal the scope and size of the project, which they were not able to provide and that makes their bid not responsive. He stated that he is allowed to request that information at any time and he requested it before we award the bids. Because they were not able to provide those references and projects, they have been deemed not responsive. He stated that with the third contractor, Pavement Coatings, there was a bid protest from the fourth contractor that they did not fill out the form that we provided for the subcontractor. Following review, he stated that there is no legal requirement for Pavement Coatings to use specifically our form. They used a separate form, and some contractors may do this because their project lists are very long or they may do that for the references. He stated that the form they provided was missing a signature which is not required by the Public Contract Code and they are not missing any information with what they have supplied, and therefore their bid is considered responsive even though they do not use our form. That is why the recommendation was to deem the first and second bid not responsive. With the third bid, we rejected the bid protest and deemed the bid responsive and are recommending the award to Pavement Coatings.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if the same job assignment was given to them in 2022 and 2023. She stated that the work they did was not good quality and she would like them to go back and check and see if we can still fix those things.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, if the project was from 2022-2023, unfortunately, the warranty period has ended on that project, as we only hold a one-year warranty on our Capital Improvement Projects. He stated that this same contractor did work on the Manor area in 2023-
24. There was an issue on Manor Drive due to the mixing of the gravels. He stated that when this contractor was notified of this, they came back and repaved all of Manor Drive so Pavement Coatings upheld their warranty for that project two years ago.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that her concern was that it takes so long to do any work on the streets and the hassle the community had to go through. She stated that, since we do not have much money, it would be good if we just hire them and staff make sure they do a good job for that project.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like we have staff assigned for that purpose.
PW D ep. Director Yip stated that we do and we will be very thorough with their QA/QC.
Councilmember Wright asked about the difference between repaving, chip seal, and slurry seal.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 24, 2025
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the chip seal has more aggregates and most cities do not typically just put a chip seal down. When you drive your car over chip seals, you are going to feel that it is very bumpy and that is why most people do a combination of the chip seal and the slurry seal which has less aggregates. He stated that the chip seal adds some structural component and that is why a slurry seal by itself will only last about seven years and the rubber cape seal can last up to 15, which we have seen and heard from other agencies. This is the backbone of our 5-year paving plans because we are backlogged several million dollars from our P-TAP report. Therefore, in order to maintain our streets, we have to do the chip seal plus the slurry seal. He stated that the reason why a lot of cities do not do the chip plus the slurry seal (called a cape seal) is because it triggers curb ramps in the city. When it triggers curb ramps, it is not as cost-effective to do the project. He stated that this has been working for us and we will do the curb ramps and then do the cape seal.
Councilmember Wright asked about the repaving.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the repaving is something that is done when it is recommended in Street Saver. He stated that there is a Pavement Condition Index which rates the pavement from 0 to 100. He stated that you can only do a slurry seal if it is above 75. Once it falls below that, it is not as effective to do this type of treatment because the second you put that black coating and oil down, the cracks will appear almost immediately; when streets are completely allocated, you cannot just put the cape seal down onto the street. If it is isolated or small patches of areas where we can go in and repave three inches, and still do the chip seal or cape seal, we will do that. If we cannot do that, the whole street is completely allocated and the street saver is going to recommend a complete new overlay of the project, which is a repaving and is much more expensive.
Councilmember Wright concluded that it is a cost-saving measure. He then asked if this was a prevailing wage job.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, adding that all our specifications require for the project to be paid in prevailing wages. We give them a project account code from the Department of Industrial Regulations and they will regulate the payment of prevailing wages and we will also check that they are paying the prevailing wages before we issue all invoices.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded that this company did both District 1 and District 2 paving and she asked if they recently did the ones in Pedro Point.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that was a different contractor called VSS.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if they provided a bid for this work now.
PW Dep Director Yip stated that the VSS did provide a bid.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded that they were one of the higher bids.
PW Dep Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles appreciated staff’s attention to public notification and communication.
She thought for the Manor project we used CWD for that project as the project manager and that person’s contact was given to residents and asked if that is true for this project also.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 24, 2025
PW Dep Director Yip stated, from two years ago, it was CSG and it was a third party that was helping with the construction management. We have since taken that in house and we will do a better job doing it in house as we know the residents and will be more responsive.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded that, if staff starts to see paving that is not to specs, we can catch it early. She stated that the other issue that came up on that project were trees that overhung the right-of-way, and she wanted to understand what the process is about that, such as does an arborist come out and notify the owner if they have a tree that is impacting the ability to do the work.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the contractor should be notifying us. We will follow the Tree Ordinance and do the trimming procedures as required. He stated that we will mention this in their pre-construction meeting with the contractor.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought it was not part of the original notices to residents and she appreciated him putting that on the list.
City Clerk Coffey stated that she also has an amendment to Item #5. She stated that Item #5 is the garbage collection ordinance that was introduced at the March 10 meeting and there was an incomplete whereas clause; as an administrative correction, we are completing the third whereas clause to read, “Whereas the City’s response to R4 of the Grand Jury Report indicates that R4 will be implemented in the future; and …” and then continues with the next whereas clause.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments on Consent Calendar excluding Item #3.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, asked confirmation that Item #4 addresses continued street repavements. She then shared community complaints and surveys about the quality of work of the vendor and suggested seeking further bids.
Cliff Lawrence, Pacifica, referred to Item #4 and asked if local vendors had bid on the project, if value was credited to local vendors during the process, and expressed concerns on the quality of work of the vendor.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, referred to Item #4 and requested adequate review of the paving work by staff and stressed the need for streets to be paved in light of the Street Pavement Index.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, referred to Item #4 and shared her concerns on the previous project in Manor with the street paving vendor and the street sweeping vendor. She also emphasized the environmental impact on the ocean and offered another option for who they hire.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She then asked staff to touch on the issue of postpaving cleanup, how is it accomplished, and what is the expectation.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the contractors have their own street sweepers and they need to clean up the slurry seal coating that has some residual aggregates. In addition, we can also request our own street sweepers to get better coverage, such as the gutters. He stated that a common residual effect of the slurry seal is some of the aggregates come off.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that they clean up after they complete their work and our street City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 24, 2025
sweeping schedule follows after that.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating after the slurry cures, they need to do some clean up, and we can inspect it to make them do this. Because we have our street sweepers out there anyway, it takes several rounds for the street sweepers to clean it up. Thus, the City cleans up afterwards with our sweepers. He stated that we would like the contractors to be responsible for this but there is a cost to it. If we want them to do something that is more work, and we want to make them slow them down so we can get proper notification, we can do that and have done that by adding the liquidated damages. There is a cost for all these things we do and it will make the bids go higher. He stated that we have a street sweeping contract that we just issued and our street sweepers can clean it up.
Mayor Beckmeyer knows we are reworking that schedule as we had to adjust it for certain areas and asked if Public Works can look at the overlap between that schedule and the paving schedule to make sure we have it scheduled to take advantage of both of those contracts.
PW Dep. Director Yip answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked when do the cars come back and park, as the street sweepers are often in the middle of the road and not cleaning the edges; if they are not cleaning the gutter, they are not picking up that gravel. She asked at what point do they do their cleaning and is there still no parking.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they do not come back and do no parking for the street sweeping. They will be sweeping the middle of the street. He stated that we can look into that part to see if we can get some parking signs there so our street sweepers can cover some of the area, but typically, if we have no parking, we would be able to capture everything in the gutter. However, because we do not have that, that is why there is so much of it in the gutter and we will have to try to address that with the project.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought that would be great if we could or have them sweep by hand such as 20 feet from the storm drain and critical spots. She asked if we give any preference for local bidders.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, with the California Public Contract Code, we are required to award it to the lowest responsive bid and responsible contractor. Having a responsive bid means following certain requirements, such as providing a subcontractors list or bond or following our specs. He stated that their requirement only has to be a responsive bid. To deem them not responsible contractors, they would either be incapable of doing the work, or there are some violations on their licensing, either with a DIR or contractor licensing board. If they have a responsive bid and are a responsible contractor, we must award to the lowest responsive bid which, with the rejection of the first and second bidders, Pavement Coatings is the next responsive bid on this project. As a requirement from the California Public Contract Code, we must advertise in the newspaper as public, and everyone can bid on the project and whoever is a responsive bid, we will award it to them, which is state law requirement. He stated, if this was federally funded, as we have for the Sharp Park Pedestrian Improvement, there are certain federal requirements which require them to award a certain percentage of the project to a disadvantaged business (DB) enterprise and sometimes those can be local but is mainly that they have to have a certification that they are a DB. With that project, there are certain types of requirements that must be met in addition to what is in the Public Contract Code. Other than that, if they can do the project, and they have a responsive bid, we must award them the project.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 March 24, 2025
PW Interim Director Sun added that the local participation is typically reserved for qualificationbased process which we use when we select consultants, but in this case, it is a contracting bid and, if it is a federal project, some might come into consideration.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that we have to follow the parameters under State law.
PW Interim Director Sun answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to approve consent calendar, minus Item #3 and with Item #5 as amended; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
CONSENT ITEMS #1, 2, 4, #5 AS AMENDED (EXCLUDING ITEM #3) RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the February 24, 2025 Joint Study Session of the City Council and Climate Action & Adaptation Task Force and the February 24, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting.
2. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Montara Mountain-North Peak Communications License Agreement
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving the Montara MountainNorth Peak Communications License Agreement; finding the approval of the License Agreement categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities); and authorizing the City Manager to execute the License Agreement.
3. Authorize the Submittal of a Grant Application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the Submittal of Grant Applications to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.”
Agenda Item #3 Discussion
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff is available to provide a verbal overview of this item.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she is asking for the overview for the new councilmembers as well as an overview of the grant application.
City Manager Woodhouse can describe what is in the application, which is for Phase 2C of the BBIRP, adding that 2B has already been authorized to apply for by Council and staff has applied and are waiting to hear about award of that.
PW Dep. Director Yip recommended to adopt the resolution entitled Resolution of the City City Council Regular Meeting 8 March 24, 2025
Council of City of Pacifica authorizing the submittal of grant applications to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP). The project will replace Pacifica’s failing sea wall and deep foundation sea wall, rock scour apron, and sand placement to protect critical infrastructure from coastal erosion and sea surges. He stated that the BBIRP is a multi-phased City-led project that aims to create a benefit solution to the Beach Boulevard corridor in the historic West Sharp Park neighborhood. The City has been working to advance BBIRP with more recent action of Council occurring on November 28, 2022, when it was approved for an amendment with GHD Inc., the coastal engineers that began the second phase of the project, specifically Phase 2A, the preliminary project design. Following public input from Phase 1, we decided that the hybrid system was the most cost-effective project which included a sea wall, rock scour apron, and beach nourishment. On March 28, 2024, Council authorized the submittal of a similar application to DBW for Phase 2B, which was the environmental document phase. We are still waiting for the results of that grant application which will be finalized by June 2025. Now, we are applying for a $2.5 million to fund Phase 2C, which is the third phase of the design. Phase 2C is the permitting and final design of BBIRP which includes completing 100% plan specification and estimates, the PS&E, and securing the regulatory permits. With the grant, there is a 50% match, and the resolution commits the City to provide the requiring matching funds of $1.25 million, which will come from the Disaster Accounting Fund. Currently, we are in Phase 2A, the 35% design and cost estimating, and are wrapping up the Notice of Preparation and Scoping for the Environmental Impact Report, which will be completed around July 2025.
In terms of timing, that falls very closely to when we will find out about DBW on the next phase of the project. Staff is planning to bring an update to the project back to Council, similar to what we did in Phase 1; at that time, we will decide on how we would like to proceed on the next phase of the project, pending on whether or not we receive this grant from DBW.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in response to questions, he said in the August timeframe for the summary. In July, we take the second meeting off in July and thus July is more impacted.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to Phase 2B, the environmental documentation, where we are still developing the design and doing all the EIR work. She asked if that is at least a year or a year and a half worth of work.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it was fair to say as it may take up to 18 months or more. He stated that the next phase is primarily focused on the EIR. In Phase 2C, we will complete the design and bring it to 100%.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought we still have a few months of presentations of those projects, some feedback, and then another year and a half, meaning close to two years before we start the other work that we are applying for the grant and putting in disaster funds now. Therefore, it would be close to two years before this work will start that staff are asking Council to approve.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, adding that it will have to happen after the EIR is complete.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if the Coastal Commission review it at that point or do they review it when we have the full set of construction drawings.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they will review in Phase 2C when we have 100% design and we go through the Coastal Commission permitting, but that is not to say that they are not allowed to review it in the EIR. They are allowed, as an interested agency, to provide comments to the City ahead of the public and will be provided the report ahead of time for the City Council Regular Meeting 9 March 24, 2025
review and commenting and we will address their comments. He stated, in terms of our coordination with the Coastal Commission, we have had three meetings with them for this phase alone with several high level comments with the studies and analysis; in addition, they asked staff about the portion in the north end to pull it back and move it and staff has done that.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded that will be coming up later this year. She stated that, with Phase 2B, we approved the grant and she asked what our cost share for that one.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the cost share is $2.5 million for Phase 2B, and that is the same grant but a different fiscal year, thus also a 50% cost share. He stated that the numbers are the same, $1.25 million of a local share for both 2B and 2C.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, if we are granted this grant for 2B, we need to come up with that money out of the Disaster Accounting Fund.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, unless we can find another local match and we do try to find it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked when does he see the grant for 2C coming forward that we will have to pay this additional $1.25 million.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it sounds like we applied last year and it took them about a year to review the application. He perceives possibly around a year or a year and a half when we will have to get an agreement in place.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked, by committing to this money now, are we committing to that in a year and a half from now or, if things change financially and our priorities change, we have the opportunity to review that again.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, until we sign the agreement, we have not committed the funds.
He stated that this is a resolution to allow us to submit the application.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if that was the City Manager’s understanding.
City Manager Woodhouse did not think the City would have to obligate the money until we receive the grant and are signing the agreement to move forward with the work. He stated that, in this type of project and the continuous fundraising strategy required for these huge infrastructure projects, it behooves the City to be lining up and having commitment and funding for those as far in advance as possible as that brings clarity and direction to the project. He stated that it is not obligated until it is signed.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments:
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, opposed matching the funds from the Disaster Accounting Fund and asked how much will the plan cost Pacifica, what is the projected lifespan of what we invest in the project, and what impact will it have on other locations in Pacifica.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, stated expressed her concerns regarding spending disaster funds on BBIRP and suggested planning for an alternative in order to be able to conserve our disaster funds and thereby respond to a major disaster.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. Finale’s comment and stated we need to have a fund City Council Regular Meeting 10 March 24, 2025
for the purpose for which it was intended.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, acknowledged that we are not committed to putting that money toward a grant application until we have it, and he shared his concerns regarding costs incurred by a disaster caused by loss of proper armoring that might be more than the matching funds.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated community members were troubled because the Disaster Accounting Fund is for short-term disasters and there is no long-term planning. She encouraged a plan for moving infrastructure inward.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, asked what the cost of moving our infrastructure inward would be and if there are grants available for those moves. He encouraged looking at alternatives before any commitments.
Ed Ochi, Pacifica, stated the resolution is to forward a grant application. He stated stopping due to an issue of cost when no grants have been awarded yet is bad and stated there is time to look for alternatives.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought the part that is confusing is the staff report states that the City shall commit the required matching funds. However, staff was saying if we got the grant, we can still decide.
City Manager Woodhouse understood and added that what he said earlier was that we are not committing the funding until we sign on the agreement with Department of Boating and Waterways. Should Council decide at that time that we will not sign and accept the grant, that would be the decision they can make. If the resolution did not say that we were going to commit the matching funding, we would not get the grant but that is how it works, i.e., having to commit to matching funding and you pay it when you sign the agreement.
Councilmember Bier wanted to comment on taking time to look at adaptation strategies as soon as our Local Coastal Land Use Plan comes back. She does not want the community to think that, just because we are putting in a grant application that we are not going to be looking at adaptation strategies.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the resolution does not have the same language that the fiscal impact in the staff report says. She stated that she works in construction and has seen many projects spend so much money on design and then they get cancelled at the last minute or they cannot get funding at the last minute. She stated that is why we have all these checks and balances along the way on the project. She thought this money was for 2B, the environmental review. She is hearing that there is less money for hard armoring and the other thing that was supposed to be done earlier and now have put off to 2B is understanding the impact of the sea wall to the community of Shoreview and to the berm. She stated for her, committing money to 2C for construction designs before we know the environmental impact and if this project is even feasible as it is, is concerning. She stated that the fact that we are committing this money now, she is okay submitting the grant application, but the staff report was confusing.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that her concerns are duly noted and she is hearing the same concerns from different parts of the community. She thinks Councilmember Bier’s points are well taken about having our LCLUP, and we will have much broader discussions about City Council Regular Meeting 11 March 24, 2025
adaptation strategies because that is part of the plan. We will be looking at all of the coast and all of those parts. She agrees that this is an armoring project, and it is a hybrid project and there are different elements and aspects to it and it has changed over time. It is appropriate for Council to have a broader discussion when we get to that point. She also thinks it is appropriate for us to be seeking funding so that we are able to get to that point.
Councilmember Wright believed that staff has demonstrated thinking a few steps down the road and he appreciates that. In addition, Council is able to make this decision earlier in the process as opposed to what he is more used to, so it gives us time to explore other options.
Councilmember Bier added other sources of money instead of the Disaster Accounting Fund.
Councilmember Espinosa agreed with her. She thought we could wait until we get closer to getting the grant and we can discuss more and figure out other sources to get the money and leave the Disaster Accounting Fund in case we need it.
Councilmember Wright moved to approve Item #3; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
AGENDA ITEM #3
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier moved to reorganize the agenda as follows: Move Item #9 to the beginning of Consideration items and Move Council Communications and Staff Communications to the end of the meeting; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
AMEND THE AGENDA (MOVE ITEM #9 TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSIDERATION ITEMS
AND MOVE COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE END OF THE MEETING) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
4. Award FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with Pavement Coatings Company in the amount of $1,586,657.90; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $1,824,656.59, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project.”
5. Adoption of Ordinance to Revise Section 6-5.103 - Section 6-5.105 Garbage Collections of the Pacifica Municipal Code
PROPOSED ACTION: Waive second reading and adopt by title only an Ordinance repealing and replacing sections 6-5.103, 6-5.104, and 6-5.105 of Chapter 5, “Garbage, Collection and Recycling” within Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” relating to the size of City Council Regular Meeting 12 March 24, 2025
waste containers and frequency of collection.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, referred to the City’s 1099’s and suggested that the City spend more of their money locally as the City continually recommends community members to do.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, referred to concerns expressed by Seacliff Apartment tenants and suggested a community event sharing tenants’ rights and resources. She also provided information and resources for tenants.
Marty Anaya, Pacifica, stated PCT has started a new project of town hall meetings and shared information on past and upcoming town hall meetings available in person and online. He invited everyone to come to the town hall meeting on the Age-Friendly Initiative.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, shared her concerns on vertiports, aircraft noise, and aircraft patterns.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns and suggestions on the future situation of the Seacliff Apartments residents being made homeless without support and resources.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, referred to the street sweeper problem because of so many cars on the street and suggested resending public notice to all residents to tell them the dates and times for street sweeping and enforce tickets for non-compliant vehicles.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She stated that we have moved Council and Staff Communications to the end of the meeting and moved Item #9 as the first consideration item.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE.
CONSIDERATION
6. Resolution approving the City’s 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI).
Community Development Director Updegrave, with the assistance of Good City Company Consultant Sabina Mora, presented the staff report. In the presentation, Director Updegrave noted a few corrections to read into the record: on the General Plan APR (packet page 167) one of the implementing actions should be corrected to Conservation Implementation 72 instead of 71 (CO-I-72) and read “Removal of Barriers to Public Participation. Implement efforts to remove barriers that may prevent underrepresented communities from public participation City Council Regular Meeting 13 March 24, 2025
opportunities.” which will be revised in the final report that is filed with LCI. On packet page 169, the ADU information was left blank and should be completed as, “The City received 25 applications for 47 ADUs in 2024, of these all were approved ministerially and 16 received a building permit in 2024.”
Consultant Sabina Mora continued the presentation. She stated that there were a couple of typographical errors in the staff report to be corrected, which are reflected in the slide presentation, and a few technical corrections read into the record, including the addition of the following text regarding affordability assigned to ADUs on Exhibit A in Table A and A2 on page 142 and 143 in the agenda packet should have the following added as a footnote, “Actual affordability of individual ADUs is not known. Affordability of ADUs on Tables A and A2 were assigned sequentially based on HCD-approved criteria.” Additionally, there is a typo on the program status on Exhibit A, Table D on packet page 149 and should be corrected to, “The City cannot submit additional amendments until after its new LCLUP is certified, which is slated for a California Coastal Commission hearing in May 2025.” Lastly, we will need to add a project Pacific View on Hickey Blvd and Monterey Road, which has 37 units, to Table A which is Completed Applications.
Community Development Director Updegrave concluded the presentation.
There were no public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to the applications we received for 397 units, and she asked how many of those were Builder’s Remedy projects.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the three larger projects are Builder’s Remedy projects.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked, if out of the 397, if that is the majority of those units.
Community Development Director Updegrave answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Espinosa asked about amount of the 397 units that is affordable housing or below market rates.
Consultant Mora stated we they would have to look at the detailed data and do a tally.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there were 43 Certificates of Occupancy and asked if any of those were from 801 Fassler.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that 801 Fassler has not received Certificate of Occupancy to date.
Mayor pro Tem Boles knows they are offering some of the units for sale and she understands that four of those units are supposed to be available to very low income and moderate income.
Consultant Mora stated, for the 397 applications on Table A, there is income distribution of those, and it is the best information the City has at this time. What they have in the applications are 15 low income, non-deed restricted; 69 low-income deed restricted; and 14 low income nondeed restricted. She reiterated that it is on Table A in the first row.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 March 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated these applications primarily do not comply with our zoning code and that is why we need them if the housing was approved. She was confused about a comment on packet page 153 about the Emergency Shelter Ordinance and asked if that has been submitted to the Coastal Commission at this point.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it has not been certified and staff will report the status of that this week.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we are behind on the timeline but assumed that HCD has reviewed the new dates that are within our capacity and deemed them acceptable.
Community Development Director Updegrave answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright referred to packet page 1304 about a February 2025 timeline.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that was in the revised Housing Element and is one of the technical edits.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the resolution approving the City’s 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the 2024 Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) with corrections noted in the presentation; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
7. General Plan Amendment GPA-106-24 for Adoption of the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan (File No. 2023-025)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:
1. Find the revisions consistent with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element and that no subsequent environmental review is required; and
2. Approve the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan Community Development Director Updegrave, with the assistance of Good City Company Consultants Nicholas Hamilton and Aaron Aknin, presented the staff report. Director Updegrave referred to a summary of the HCD direction and revisions, some technical revisions and provided a copy to Council with a revision to the recommended Resolution with an added revised Finding, and staff’s recommendation.
Consultant Hamilton continued the presentation. In the presentation, he discussed analysis and revisions based on work with HCD to come to a substantially compliant Housing Element. He read into the record a revision to the table note for Table 5, “Programs indicated with (R) are rezoning programs. All land use redesignation and rezoning to accommodate RHNA are included within HE-I-1 and are intended to be complete by May 2025 (edited from February)…” He also provided for the record technical edits to the Proposed Resolution adding the Findings, City Council Regular Meeting 15 March 24, 2025
as identified in the letter from HCD that was received recently, to make Findings associated with the non-vacant sites to fulfill low-income RHNA with site-by-site analysis in Tables F-11 and F12 in Appendix F on pages F40-F42 with data, methodology and evidential basis for the conclusions that are drawn.
Community Development Director Updegrave concluded the presentation.
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if Council has questions before they open public comments.
Councilmember Wright appreciated the work done by Planning Commission and Community Development staff in coordinating with HCD and finalizing the draft.
Mayor pro Tem Boles appreciated Good City and all the work they did coordinating with HCD.
She asked if HE-I-1 was related to the topic of sites that already have development on them.
Consultant Hamilton stated that it was specific to sites listed for shortfall that would be rezoned to achieve a lower income RHNA on those sites.
Mayor pro Tem Boles knows one is the Sanchez Art Center and asked if we are rezoning the shortfall sites now as part of this process.
Consultant Hamilton stated that the January 2024 Housing Element already included rezoning these sites to achieve this and more. He stated that this is a statutory threshold applicable to any site statewide that might fall into that category. These sites were already going to satisfy this requirement and HCD insisted that the language go in.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we zoned it for more than this number of units even for Sanchez.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that all of these sites are included in the Phase 1 rezoning already.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about the maps and conditions Planning Commission made regarding partly the boundary as well as adding setbacks, open space requirements, heights, etc. and asked if that has been reviewed and analyzed or part of the later rezoning work.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the assessment of the objective design standards is part of the rezoning packet moving forward and those are not included in the Housing Element.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that in the Housing Element we are identifying a certain number of units for each of these sites.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 March 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated based on the area devoted to housing.
She stated that we have not made any changes to any of the maps so they are currently part of the adopted Housing Element.
Councilmember Wright stated Planning Commission performed the analysis and calculations and concluded it was feasible to do it within the high requirements in the amount of area we provided them for it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there was a finding that said “based on substantial evidence in the record, existing uses on a non-vacant site identified in the site inventory, to accommodate RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development” and stated she needs to know which sites these are before confirming that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the analysis supporting these findings is already located within the Housing Element itself and is not based on new information. She stated that HCD asked staff to include these findings in this packet and that is why they were added but are reflective of the analysis in the Housing Element itself.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated this was Appendix F.
Consultant Hamilton stated that the change is to the finding and not to the development standards such as the density or units anticipated for any of those sites which stand as they stood in January 2024. He stated the change here is to make a finding that says that analysis is in the record to reinforce what has already been done.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if the Sanchez Art Center is in this list of sites and explain what is in the record that says the Sanchez Art Center uses are not an impediment.
Community Development Director Updegrave thought it was important to remember that the polygons account for some of the existing development that is on the site and locate areas for housing development within specific locations on this site.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated for the record that the finding is not legally required in the resolution, only the Government Code of more than 50% of the low income sites are not vacant, but since HCD asked to include the finding and since the information was already in the record in the text of the Housing Element, staff did include it as well as a finding that more than 50% of the low income is on non-vacant sites for clarification.
Consultant Hamilton referred to packet page 1565, Table F12. He pointed out the Art Center on the screen, Site 23, is a publicly owned site by the City. The way that the State identifies whether or not that site is constrained is that a site owned by the City has more latitude than one that is privately owned.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we are saying this finding for the site that the existing uses are not an impediment.
Consultant Hamilton stated that the existing uses are not an impediment to the number of units that are listed on the Housing Element. The methodology for this site does not assume that the entire site is wall-to-wall an apartment block but assumes it is a specific amount of the site and City Council Regular Meeting 17 March 24, 2025
that the other amount of the site is reserved for other purposes that are not included with the units included in the housing inventory.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if the two School District sites are also part of this.
Consultant Hamilton stated packet page 1563 includes site level analysis sites No. 21 and 22, Oceana and Terra Nova. There are not structures that are newer than 1993; if there are structures, they are either no structure or a single story; the lot coverage is less than 50%; and no demolition of a structure would be required for the areas indicated in order to achieve this capacity. He stated that the size of the site is important. He stated that there is no improvement to land value due to the nature of a public facility. With that combined with rezoning, the finding would be that this would be likely to redevelop or there is not a reason why it would be unlikely to redevelop.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that the finding talks about existing uses and the School District has written letters they are not interested. She asked if that needs to be factored in.
Consultant Hamilton stated, like all sites owned as real property, we do not have a window into the mind of the individual or institution that makes that decision ultimately on what they will do with that land moving forward. The City has land use authority and that is a prerogative within the City that it can exercise to proactively establish a vision and plan and regulations around what may or may not be possible. That can influence the value and potential decisions of that institution or individual, in this case another public agency school district.
Councilmember Wright asks what happens if we change this document at all.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated changes would have to go back to Housing and Community Development for additional review and that would likely add a considerable amount of time. She thinks we are at a point where we want HCD to see that we are making progress and a good faith effort to get ourselves toward certification. It could delay the rezoning. The Housing Element revisions must be adopted prior to certification of the EIR and adoption of the targeted General Plan amendment and rezoning.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy reiterated that we would have to take any changes back to HCD because HCD did review and issue their letter based on what was sent to them. If there were revisions made, we would have to resubmit it to HCD, determine whether that affected their decisions, and then go through the process to see if we would get the same letter from HCD.
Councilmember Wright asked what the potential consequences would be.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the potential consequences are we will continue to not have local control over land use decisions and we would be vulnerable to more Builder’s Remedy applications. HCD could also use their enforcement authority which could include legal action referral to the Attorney General, fines, monetary penalties, and further loss of local control over certain things.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added we could also be vulnerable to third party suits. In addition, without a certified Housing Element, there are certain grants that the City is not eligible for.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 March 24, 2025
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she is speaking as the Executive Director of Sanchez Art Center. She described how the Sanchez Art Center has been a vibrant part of our community and explained that the City purchased the property as a recreational and cultural center in 1998.
She asked Council to remove Site 23 from the Housing Element.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, emphasized the importance of the tourism revenue generated by the Sanchez Art Center. She also objected to the repercussions that the City may face as a result of not meeting RHNA numbers.
Andrew Leone, Pacifica, stated he is speaking as a founding member of the Sanchez Art Center and shared the history of the site from 1996 and spoke of the significance of keeping the Art Center in Pacifica.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he is a board member of the Art Center and a performer at the Mildred Owen Concert Hall and opposed eliminating the Art Center to satisfy RHNA numbers.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Bier asked where it says we will be removing the Art Center.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked staff to explain how by-rights relate to having an approved Housing Element or not, in regard to local control.
Good City Consultant Aknin thought the key component on this site is that it is a publicly owned site. He stated that what is different on this site versus a private site is that we will still go through a Request for Proposal process if we put this out to the development community, and we would lay out the vision for this site, which would be retention of Art Center based on Councilmember and public feedback. He stated that is different than a privately owned site, a by-right site, where they can find a developer and the City would have limited discretion. The City has an extra step as a public agency when we own the land to go through a process where we develop that vision and take that to the community and have Council meetings where that is discussed. He stated that this site was also purposely under zoned. He stated that this was all designed from what we heard from the public, the Planning Commission, and Council to take into consideration retention of the Art Center while still being able to build out the number of units specified within the Housing Element.
Councilmember Espinosa asked we can have the units and have the Art Center stay there.
Consultant Aknin answered affirmatively. What the Council would have to do is lay out in detail in the RFP what the City’s vision is and we would put that out to the development community, maybe the affordable housing development community, and they would have to build around that. He stated that he worked in a different city where he was a Planning Director and they had a site the city-owned; the Council’s vision was to have senior affordable on top and a day care center on the bottom. They laid that in detail in RFP and that was the selection criteria in which they chose the developer; today, in that city, there is senior affordable housing with day care and the developers that did not propose to that did not make it through the screening criteria.
He stated that we will have that extra step of discretion.
Councilmember Wright stated that was the process we went through at the Planning Commission and why we zoned it for 40 units an acre. We were contemplating vertical addition and maintaining the same square footage for the Art Center and maintaining the performance City Council Regular Meeting 19 March 24, 2025
space at the same time.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added the playing fields were carved out to be protected.
Councilmember Wright agreed.
Community Development Director Updegrave added that packet page 451 states that any redevelopment would incorporate the Art Center.
Councilmember Wright stated if we still have the right to condition these projects any way we want as we own the land.
Community Development Director Updegrave answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what HCD is expecting of us and will they be forcing us to go through a Surplus Land Act process and what are the steps we are committing to doing.
Consultant Hamilton stated that what the Housing Element articulates are several proactive steps to move it forward into a process that could end up in an RFP and could get at development proposals for the vision we would articulate. He stated that, before we can do any of that, the first step would be to conduct a FIT study to work with either a developer or highly qualified consultant to understand the real development potential and understand what is realistic at a more granular level than what the Housing Element is doing for all of its sites. It is a stepping stone for building up enough information to decide that we want to put an RFP together and what are the options underneath the Surplus Land Act which has multiple different pathways we might follow. We want to make that decision based on the best possible evidence and analyze that in greater depth than what is currently on the table. He stated those would be some of the initial steps to analyze the development potential and what is realistic.
Mayor pro Tem Boles assumes we do not have to put it out for surplus land and then have to accept a low income housing developer who wants to build 300 units there.
Consultant Hamilton stated that there are steps we want to put in place moving inch-wise to make sure that, once we are committed, we are far more aligned with what our vision for that site would be before we lock ourselves in.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that it is a surplus site, not one of our core sites. She asked if there are still steps that we have to do or do we wait to see how other things are being done.
Consultant Hamilton stated that we are committing to doing those steps for this site.
Mayor pro Tem Boles reiterated that we are committing to doing those steps now.
Consultant Hamilton stated the first step will be a study to understand the development potential at this site.
Councilmember Wright stated, if it did need to become developed, we could still maintain the Art Center and the performance studio and there is sufficient space there for that.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked how much does a study like that cost.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 March 24, 2025
Consultant Aknin stated it is a considerable amount of money.
Mayor Beckmeyer assumed it would be funded by the City.
Consultant Aknin answered affirmatively.
Mayor Beckmeyer assumed the State is not funding that study or compelling us to do it.
Consultant Aknin stated that they are compelling us to do it but do not necessarily have a funding source. There are some grants out there, but not one that they are handing to the City as part of this.
City Manager Woodhouse added that this is why we have our Housing in Lieu Fund and our Housing Action Fund related to starting development of housing.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to environmental considerations and stated there is a major creek that runs beside that site and we do not know what the buffers are, as that has never been studied. She asked what the limitations or obligations for a City with a site like this when none of that has been factored in.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that all of that would have to be part of the study itself. She added that this site is already in that adopted Housing Element and this site has not been added to the inventory list.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what the change is with regard to this amendment.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the changes with the amendment are clarifying that these sites will be rezoned in a certain manner, i.e. requiring minimum densities, allowing by right development for projects that meet certain affordability thresholds, etc. The site was already slated to be rezoned and the rezoning is even more intensive than what the amendment to the implementation calls for.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that the by-right approval language that was added included requirements in State law because all of the low income sites have to include the by-right language if at least 20% of the housing on the site is low-income. The City does have control over the site and the impacts of that are different than a privately owned site as the City controls what will ultimately be developed on the site and, through the FIT study and through the analysis that needs to be done before we would start thinking about any surplus land issues.
Councilmember Bier asked, outside of the Housing Element, what we can put in place to make sure that it is protected. She acknowledged it is outside the discussion at this time.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is a requirement that HCD is imposing on the City and, in terms of future City desires on how it wants to control that property, Council could take some action to show what its intent is, but that intent could be changed by any future Council.
Councilmember Wright mentioned the example of Sharp Park itself which is a deed-restricted piece of public property given to the City that is only allowable for certain uses. He thought there was some way they could do something similar.
Mayor pro Tem Boles did not know how much we can restrict it if we are saying it is for a certain City Council Regular Meeting 21 March 24, 2025
amount of housing. We could say the buildings could somehow be protected and built over.
She stated that by-rights still bothers her as there is no public process for reviewing the project.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that, on a publicly owned site, there is public process in the Surplus Lands Act, in the RFP, and other public processes.
Mayor pro Tem Boles assumed not to review the final design.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that some of the policies in the Housing Element do provide that flexibility for the City to look at different options as the City proceeds with the FIT study. It includes language that, during the study, staff will present a menu of options for potential development to Council and Council has the ability to determine the process and would be able to determine the process to Notice of Availability and, if it did move forward, through any transfer of the property, the City would be able to exercise some control as to what was ultimately constructed.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, if we are rebuilding on a portion of the lot that has buildings, which is how the polygon is divided up now, they are going to have to tear down the buildings to build something new and higher. She asked who would be responsible for paying for that rebuild if we are rebuilding those spaces.
Councilmember Bier asked if it has to go on top of the building or somewhere else. She understands that there are playing fields but there are playing fields in other places too.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it would be part of the visioning process for the site for Council to establish what the vision is. He stated that, if on this site, the vision was Art Studios, Art Center space, performance center space, affordable housing, and playing fields, that is what would be envisioned, scoped out, and taken through the process.
Mayor Beckmeyer wondered if, in an RFP, the City could specify affordable housing for artists or specify for whom the affordable housing is built.
Consultant Aknin stated that we can specify, such as in the example of senior housing. We have discretion in these RFP processes, even architecture, which could become one of the screen and scoring criteria in which we choose the developer. He would have to look at artist units, but the City has discretion through an RFP process to lay out the vision.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated that the most important things for Council to remember is that the Council controls the site and that provides so much more discretion on this particular site, more than any other site not controlled by the City. We will design what we want for that site. In the RFP, we control it and we can identify who we want to pay for it, such as the developer.
That process will go through negotiations at that time to determine how it pencils out for the developer, is there any assistance the City can provide for affordable housing, and that is all part of the process that happens once the RFP is issued and then discussions begin. The fact that Council has control over the site provides Council with a lot more discretion than any of the other sites that we are designating in the Housing Element.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we had a fairly big buffer and asked if there was any chance that we could take it out.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, if we remove any sites, it would need to City Council Regular Meeting 22 March 24, 2025
go back to HCD for further review, as well as Planning Commission and back to Council.
Councilmember Espinosa asked, if we move forward, can we decide later on what we are going to put in there.
Community Development Director Updegrave answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright asked if what the real dollars of the affordable levels are.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is based on a percentage of the average median income.
Councilmember Wright stated that it is San Mateo County so that may be a high income.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated HE-I-11 and HE-I-12 were both supposed to have actions started either early 2024 or now and she was curious what the dates are.
Consultant Hamilton stated he would answer the question on affordability. He stated that the 2024 numbers for low would be up to 80% of the area median income. The area of median income for the defined area here is $186,000 a year for a household of four. For 80% AMI, the upper income level for a household of four would be a household income level of $156,650.
Councilmember Wright thought all of Pacifica may be affordable.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated HE-I-12 ties into the process for offering low income units for sale and we talked before that 801 Fassler has not had Certificates of Occupancy yet but are already listing units for sale. She asked what the policy is for advertising the low-income tenants and how to get the word out so it is a fair process.
Community Development Director Updegrave asked if her question is about 801 Fassler.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed, adding the programs for selling affordable units and marketing affordable units which is AG-I-12.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 am; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Consultant Hamilton stated that there are several affirmative marketing strategies and one of the important ones is reaching out to families in schools identified as having low income households about opportunities that would be within some of the higher resource areas and it is facilitating some of the housing mobility in reaching out to families that could benefit from it greatly and it is an important part of this program.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if it is going to be specifically for Pacificans.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 March 24, 2025
Consultant Hamilton agreed, adding that there are other outreach efforts for that, but there is a particular one in here about trying to foster economic mobility as well.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, in terms of timeline, we are not looking at anything before June or next year for these policies.
Consultant Hamilton stated that there is an ambitious slate of programs that will require capacity that the City has already committed to with the January Housing Element adoption and there are additional implementation actions in this draft that will require even more capacity.
Councilmember Wright moved to approve according to staff’s recommendations as amended; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles exited the meeting at approximately 12:00 a.m.
8. Public Meeting to Receive Testimony Regarding Establishment of the '94 Business Improvement District (BID), the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD) PROPOSED ACTION: Receive public testimony regarding the proposed establishment of the ’94 Business Improvement District (BID), the Pacifica Tourism Management District (PTMD).
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on looking for encouraging tourism as a destination in Pacifica for revenue.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She stated that there is no action required and Council will be hearing from Asst. City Manager Carter on April 28 for the public hearing.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
9. Funding for the Temporary Safe Parking Program in Partnership with the Pacifica Resource Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an update about the City of Pacifica and Pacifica Resource Center’s Temporary Safe Parking Program and consider extending Temporary Safe Parking Program and approving use of $204,000 from the City’s Housing Action Fund toward expansion and continuation of the program by renting and utilizing spaces in the San Francisco RV (SFRV) Resort in Pacifica.
Note: Item #9 was moved to the beginning of Consideration items and discussed prior to Agenda Item #6.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 March 24, 2025
PRC Executive Director Anita Rees began the staff report.
Councilmember Bier asked about the Temporary Safe Parking Program’s (TSPP) experiences with harassment and how the collaboration with law enforcement with trauma-informed policing.
Executive Director Rees described the different kinds of harassment, i.e. honking, vandalization, graffiti, etc. On Lundy, one thing PRC did in partnership with PW and PD was install a solar light and add patrols, which made the residents staying there feel more secure. They were also able to follow up with perpetrators due to video camera footage. She stated that there was increased patrol in that area and a decline for a period of time, followed by another uptick. As a result, PRC left their outreach van with a camera there to monitor activity. Part of the difficulty is that the owners did not always tell them that it happened and they wanted to take the reporting off their plate. The other thing that happened was that people were being harassed on other parts of City streets. She stated that the clients did not feel comfortable sharing. Only when PD responded to something else related were they told about what had happened, but there was no way of finding out who had done anything like that. She stated that it has ebbed and flowed, and they have not gotten a lot of complaints for a while.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about statistics including people in a shelter or a navigation center, and what are the percentages in the county.
Executive Director Rees stated she can find out. She felt that the amount of people moving into housing is close to 20%. She stated that one of the biggest challenges around what happens after they leave shelter is that there is no funding for a “leaver study” to follow up with those who have left. Thus, the assumption is that, if they leave shelter and are in housing, and they do not get back into the shelter system, it means they are still housed. That is not always accurate, especially if they moved out of county. She stated that it is hard to find out unless they are connected. She stated one of the advantages of PRC being a core agency, and the relationships we have with property managers in town, is that they can get people into places that are local to Pacifica and stay connected which is easier for them to know if they are still housed. They do not have the resources to proactively check in with them if they are not already connecting with them past six months.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if there have been issues or complaints on Oceana, Milagra, etc. in the last six months.
Executive Director Rees stated those people have not shared anything with them, but staff in the past had been there for a move, repairs, or check-ins and heard some honking. She thinks it was less of an issue there and it never got to the point at which there was vandalism.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked how that PD partnership is working out.
Executive Director Rees stated that there have been challenges with the more recent CSO and the relationship with those who are in the program, but they work through it and continue to try to educate.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, spoke in support of the PRC and their TSPP work and described the City Council Regular Meeting 25 March 24, 2025
benefits of moving people into permanent housing. She advocated for extending the program.
Maryann Carnoch, Pacifica, asked about the locations of the RVs in the TSPP in light of the additional option of the San Francisco RV Park. She described traffic difficulties with RVs parked on streets. She also asked about the timeline for moving the TSPP participants into permanent housing and for addressing the increased number of RVs in Pacifica.
John James, Pacifica, shared his experience with government housing and spoke in support of PRC and their TSPP work. He advocated for extending the program.
Elizabeth Bredall, Pacifica, spoke in support of PRC and their TSPP work and advocated for extending the program.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, spoke in support of PRC and their TSPP work and advocated for extending the program. She also stated funding for case management is necessary.
Ellen Hage, Pacifica, spoke in support of PRC and their TSPP work and advocated for extending the program and funding the case management.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated many community members were in need of compassion and stated the case management was what made this program work.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, emphasized the importance of feeling safe in the community and stated that we have the moral obligation to continue the program in the RV Park. He advocated for extending the program.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, spoke in support of PRC and their TSPP work and was impressed and grateful for their presence in our community.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, emphasized that the case management was at the core of the program and advocated for extending the program and funding the case management.
Julianne Rokosky, El Granada, hoped a program like TSPP could be implemented throughout the coastside, which had higher rates of homelessness and lower availability of beds and housing. She advocated for extending the program and funding the case management.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about how the street spaces will work with the RV Park spaces.
Executive Director Rees stated the RV Park requires you to leave at least every four months or less, and they came up with a strategy that uses ten spaced inside and five spaces outside and they would cycle in. She stated that the RVs outside would stay for a month and they would cycle in with five cycling out and stay on Milagra and Oceana for two months and then another group would cycle out. After those first two rounds, once they were in the RV Park, they would stay for three full months, but those outside would move one or two months. Thus, everyone would have a one-month (four-week), two-month (eight-week), and three-month (thirteen-week) stay. Thus, they needed the outside spaces, as they cannot stay longer than four months.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked how many people are on the waitlist now for the program.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 March 24, 2025
Executive Director Rees stated that they currently have two households on the waitlist and others that they continue to reach out to. They have been doing an unofficial count of people in motorhomes in Pacifica that they believe are sleeping in them (about 25 to 30 on any given day). One of the things they have been trying to do is connect with those people. There are varying degrees of interest in participating in the program, but having an extension and using the RV Park, as well as staying in one location for a longer period of time, would be a significant change in the quality of their lives and may be more open to it. The work happening along Esplanade may mean those people will be displaced and they may be more willing and interested in participating in the program. She imagines a percentage of them will leave the area and others who want to stay in the area will want to participate.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we have the money for the spaces (about $1,700 monthly; $208,000 yearly) and the City used to contribute $120,000 a year.
Executive Director Rees agreed that is correct from the original TSPP.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that there is another $88,000 that they are looking for funding. She stated that the County is still trying to figure out their budget and are not ready to commit.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with the City’s three-year commitment, we used American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the first three years of $120,000 per year and that ends in June. The alternative question for Council is if they wanted to contribute funding towards the operation of the program. He stated there is not an ongoing source of the $120,000.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed with public comments that the services are as important as the parking spaces and was trying to understand where that money will come from, when they will know if they will have that money, and otherwise where would it come from.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the strategies is that Council is taking a significant step to commit a significant amount of money towards this program ($204,000) and that is a catalyst for the conversation to bring other collaborators, like the County or potentially longerterm grant funding into the program.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated asked, if we do not get it, would staff come back to Council and would we sign the lease for these spaces before having funds appropriated for the services.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that another work item is to talk and negotiate with SF RV and talk about timeline, but the ideal scenario would be that we bring together all the funding for the case work support and the spaces for at least a six-month period to initiate that.
Councilmember Wright asked, if we commit to six months of funding, would it preclude us from seeking additional funds to support this program and offset the case worker services.
City Manager Woodhouse reiterated, if we commit the $204,000 for the spaces plus six months of operating costs of $104,000, whether that would preclude us from seeking additional funding.
Councilmember Wright clarified from seeking reimbursement from the county.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, once money is committed, you are not going to get someone to give you money to reimburse or displace the money already committed. He City Council Regular Meeting 27 March 24, 2025
thought, at that point, it would be a stronger financial commitment from Council to our potential collaborators, such as the County, to say we are funding this operationally case support for six months and rental spaces for a year and we want them to at least add on to that for the additional six months of case support, if not beyond.
Councilmember Wright asked if that six-month period is what staff thinks is sufficient in order to seek and secure that additional funding to keep the program fully funded through the one year.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that allows more breathing room, although one of the timelines, in conversation with the County, would be on a fiscal year basis so we would be talking with them and trying to secure their participation during the spring budget season but at least six months would allow more.
Executive Director Rees stated that she has spoken with the County Executive’s Office about this idea, especially with the number of unhoused along Pacifica and the coast. There is a significant need in San Mateo County and, two years ago, Half Moon Bay received funding to create a safe parking program which had everything put together, but the location fell through.
The County recognized a need to have something like that on the coast, but there was no location. Our City and Council can present this idea to the County and say we are in support of something like this and want to be part of the solution, and we have more chance of either getting it incorporated into the County’s continuum of care as some point in the future or at least initial funding to see how it goes. She does not know of any other safe parking program that has an RV Park as a partner. She feels that, based on their experience with the RV Park, that is a great opportunity to test and it may be a consideration for the County. At the same time, there are concerns, at the federal level, about funding and they are concerned about using Measure K funds for anything outside of core needs. She thinks the County is interested in seeing our outcomes and what we might be able to do and they might be willing, similar to the first round, to contribute $400,000 in ARPA funds to support this program. To ask them to do something similar with discretionary funds may be within the realm of possibility. There is also potential to get funding from the Department of Housing and there are other foundations that support this work.
Councilmember Wright asked, if we gave six months funding, would there be nothing to stop staff from bringing this issue back to Council in the event that we could not secure any additional funding.
City Manager Woodhouse answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier stated that, when TSPP was first into play, the relationship with SF RV Park was not there and PRC and the City worked hard over the past few years to create this relationship with the SF RV Park. She stated that Half Moon Bay had an outside agency and it went out to an RFP and that is how the program is run. She knows that the capacity of PRC is not necessarily to run this program forever. She pointed out that it is going to take time for Council to talk to our County representatives of the county and six months is not enough. She asked City Manager Woodhouse how much money is in the Housing Fund.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the Housing Action Fund’s current balance is approximately $2.9 million.
Councilmember Bier thought we should take the full amount of the money out of the Housing Fund to pay for the spaces and the case management for a year to give Council, PRC and the City Council Regular Meeting 28 March 24, 2025
City enough time to get out there and talk to our representatives to get buy-in so eventually there can be an RFP that goes out to an outside agency to run the program.
City Manager Woodhouse added, for clarification, that the one-year full cost would be $204,000 for the rental and $208,000 for the case work support.
Executive Director Rees stated it would be for 15 families and, as they transition, there will be new people coming in.
City Manager Woodhouse concluded $412,000. The minimum continuation of $40,000 is if we were not doing the case management, which is included in the $208,000.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked Executive Director Rees for what she does. She stated she was a board member of PRC and she is very happy to see what she is doing in helping the community as well as the unhoused.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is impressed with the work that has gone on to date and appreciated the partnership of public safety in this process. She stated that will also be an ongoing cost and investment for the City. She asked City Manager about the waste dump station and the dumpsters we are currently utilizing.
City Manager Woodhouse and Executive Director Rees stated that the black and gray water disposal is provided by Recology. City Manager Woodhouse stated it is an operational detail that we need to talk about with SF RV, as the RVs at SF RV have hookups and, in a brief conversation on Friday morning with SF RV manager, he mentioned providing that resource for the others. He stated that there could be an extra cost to continue that program if we cannot run it all through SF RV.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it sounds like there may be an extra cost around that.
Councilmember Espinosa asked, even though we are funding for a year, if we can also get any San Mateo County official to help us to do another year or so.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is what Councilmember Bier is proposing, i.e., we need a solid year to buy the time to make those connections to get that story told approaching foundations and they need to see that kind of annual investment. She supported Councilmember Bier’s suggestion of $412,000 from the Housing Action Fund (Fund 21).
Councilmember Wright asked how that time horizon lines up, in the event we are able to secure either funding through the State or the County, when they start their calendar.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, since this funding would start at the end of June, beginning of July, it would line up nicely for a fiscal year for the County. He was not sure about the grant cycles. He thought we would want to try to work with the County to get an obligation sooner so we know what will happen with the program sooner than later and continuing it.
Councilmember Wright stated he was trying to get our cycles lined up in order to give even more pressure to put on.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that the year-long lines up better as then it is on their fiscal year.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 March 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles is happy to approve the money for the spots for six months but wondered if we grant this money then they may be less likely to give it to us. She thought coming back to Council in six months if we do not get it so we can approve that then. She stated that we have not had a Housing Fund. She knows we have two interested non-profit developers that are looking to build extremely low-income housing, adding that is want we need in the long term.
She knows this is something that we can help people now and is important, and she completely agrees what we need to do. However, the more money we can get from the County, then we can save our money for building things in Pacifica.
Mayor Beckmeyer deferred to City Manager and Executive Director Rees on their experience with funding with the County. She thought we are not funding housing from $2 million; it is our relationship with the County that helps us leverage our dollars with what we are doing here and leverage their dollars and that is what ends up paying for the affordable housing. She does not know if we can make a partnership with a six-month program.
Councilmember Bier added that a year is going to allow everyone to plan better. She stated that it shows our commitment.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood and was happy to defer to her. She stated that the other question we have not finalized is where the spaces are and whether we are keeping some on Lundy or not and how many we are putting in the RV Park.
Councilmember Bier stated no to Lundy.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that this is putting all of the spaces in her district. She stated that her neighbors have been good with that on the other spaces, but there are issues with the RVs in the neighborhood that are not being addressed. She thinks there might be need for more services in their area if all of this is being put in this part of town.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it is completely separate and not before Council this evening.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that she was asking about police presence and PD does not typically patrol the area and it is also part of a coastal trail where the community walks back and forth. She wants to make sure we are sensitive if there are issues that come up.
Councilmember Bier stated that those are voting districts and that Council’s district is the City and the spaces are not being placed in only Mayor pro Tem Boles’ district.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that they are because Pedro Point has appealed those spaces and Lundy has been bad neighbors.
Councilmember Bier asked if she would want to go back to Lundy if she did not have to.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that she does not want to, as she wants people to be in safe places, and she is saying that the impacts will be greater in her district and there might be some need for extra funding and she wants to be able to bring that back if we need to.
Councilmember Bier suggested that Council work on that with County partners.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked how many spaces are we paying for.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 March 24, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated packet page 1638 says ten counting the one currently being used, thus an additional nine spaces in SF RV.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks PRC and the City need to talk about the on-street spaces.
The core recommendation is continuing the five spaces, Oceana and Milagra, and not the Lundy spaces for the reasons cited. One of the conversations was, if we have capacity in a waitlist, if the Lundy spaces exist and could potentially be used again.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked, if we do not have 15 people participating, are we still paying that rent or are we putting them all there and take the ones off the street.
City Manager Woodhouse added that more conversations and negotiations need to occur with the SF RV Park and that would be one of the parameters he wanted to talk to them about. He wanted to be mindful that they are a private business going out on a limb to commit to this and what they see is revenue certainty and assistance for the program.
Mayor Beckmeyer understood that it is a year and ten spaces in the SF RV Park.
Councilmember Bier moved to take $412,000 from the Housing Action Fund to fund the ten spaces in the SF RV Park, case work operations, and continuation of the five spots on Milagra and Oceana; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for clarification of motion, the $412,000 would cover rental of the ten spaces and a year of PRC operation case work support for the program as it is currently operated but for more spaces.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer called a break and then reconvened the meeting.
10. Mid-year budget review and adoption of a resolution to adjust the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the mid-year FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget adjustments.
Asst. City Manager Carter and Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez presented the staff report.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if it is possible for staff to provide the budget ahead of time.
Director Gómez stated that staff will take Council through the proposed budget more than once throughout the cycle.
Asst. City Manager Carter added the budget calendar will be shared at the next study session.
There were no public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 March 24, 2025
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mid-year FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital budget Adjustments; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 4/28/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor